Would the Space Programs of the World be Better Off...

[Illusions]

...if they used a portion of their budgets as funds for a "prize" in a specific area of research, engineering, and/or production that they otherwise would not be able to afford due to budget constraints.

My thoughts concerning this come from the recent trend of exploiting designers by, instead of directly hiring them, offering a prize to only the winner of a competition, or only paying for the best design out of a submitted pool of designs. Essentially the companies engaging in this practice get far more than their money's worth than if they actually paid for all the work involved themselves. I have a vague idea this might have been done before (I'm not thinking of the Ansari X-Prize, but something in regards to space suit design and production). Just wondering what everyone's thoughts regarding this are, its been in my head for a bit.

[wiggin]

This is an interesting idea for a lot of purposes, not just the space program. There are two problems to competitions: the first is that oftentimes the government places more and more requirements on a project in so-called 'requirements creep', which can ruin a good competition and completely eliminate any incentive for companies to compete in a meaningful manner. This can easily be rectified by establishing guidelines that are concrete to start with but not too detailed to allow companies some flexibility in how they do it. The second problem is the reverse; companies might cut corners to win a prize that's not sufficiently stringent in its criteria. There also tends to be a problem in assessing which of competing designs is 'better' - just look at the brouhaha over recent awarding of defense contracts.

I think the great thing about these competitions is that it forces the companies to shoulder much of the R&D cost and development risk - this means they're less likely to waste money on unproductive avenues or poorly performing designs. Furthermore, it allows a great deal of latitude in precisely how they will achieve a stated goal. You want a manned system capable of taking X number of people to Mars and housing them there for 18 months? There are a hell of a lot of ways to do it, and companies left on their own are likely to arrive at simpler, cheaper, and more creative solution than a top-down effort in a government sponsored design.

There are a lot of bureaucratic problems, though. Awarding a prize too early risks eliminating good designs that just aren't mature yet, and also might give companies an incentive to promise a lot in the hopes of getting guaranteed funding down the road. Awarding them too late reduces the number of players who have the capital and risk appetite to try such a winner-takes-all proposal.

There's practically a whole science in how to properly make competitive government tenders, but unknown research or design outcomes are an order of magnitude tougher given the uncertainties involved. That being said, I'd say it's a good idea for many government projects.

[agamemnus]

I think it has to do with supply and demand. There's a lot of engineering supply in the world; much more than there is the capital to fund the ideas. I really don't think that was the case in the 1960s.

It's kind of like Jon Stewart's idea for a game show where homeless people compete for a job and a house...

Anyway, I don't agree that having people compete for what are essentially scraps is the best way to go, even if it gives a nice warm feeling and tons of public attention. Sure, have competitions, but liberally hire the better entrants (not just the winners, or just pay the winners) into a stable space program, as well. Also, hire those who didn't compete, as well -- normally. Few of those with a good idea and/or good engineering skills can actually participate in such contests.

This is an interesting idea for a lot of purposes, not just the space program. There are two problems to competitions: the first is that oftentimes the government places more and more requirements on a project in so-called 'requirements creep'...

Right on...it's not just for mega-projects, either. I saw this first-hand, where a simple PR "consulting" request made by our local water & sewer agency/organization turned into a multi-page contractor document (like the kind they need for, for instance, construction project contractors).

It was impossible to apply without getting x recommendations by another public agency (that was getting the same PR services), where you or your company had to have done the exact thing they were looking for for y years, etcetcetc. In the end, only one company applied and got rejected because it didn't meet the requirements at all.

It didn't help that the form wasn't publicly available -- the only way to have known about this was to read the local newspaper and request a copy, and that they only about three weeks for "bids".

[Illusions]

This is an interesting idea for a lot of purposes, not just the space program. There are two problems to competitions: the first is that oftentimes the government places more and more requirements on a project in so-called 'requirements creep', which can ruin a good competition and completely eliminate any incentive for companies to compete in a meaningful manner. This can easily be rectified by establishing guidelines that are concrete to start with but not too detailed to allow companies some flexibility in how they do it. The second problem is the reverse; companies might cut corners to win a prize that's not sufficiently stringent in its criteria. There also tends to be a problem in assessing which of competing designs is 'better' - just look at the brouhaha over recent awarding of defense contracts.

I think the great thing about these competitions is that it forces the companies to shoulder much of the R&D cost and development risk - this means they're less likely to waste money on unproductive avenues or poorly performing designs. Furthermore, it allows a great deal of latitude in precisely how they will achieve a stated goal. You want a manned system capable of taking X number of people to Mars and housing them there for 18 months? There are a hell of a lot of ways to do it, and companies left on their own are likely to arrive at simpler, cheaper, and more creative solution than a top-down effort in a government sponsored design.

There are a lot of bureaucratic problems, though. Awarding a prize too early risks eliminating good designs that just aren't mature yet, and also might give companies an incentive to promise a lot in the hopes of getting guaranteed funding down the road. Awarding them too late reduces the number of players who have the capital and risk appetite to try such a winner-takes-all proposal.

There's practically a whole science in how to properly make competitive government tenders, but unknown research or design outcomes are an order of magnitude tougher given the uncertainties involved. That being said, I'd say it's a good idea for many government projects.

This here is pretty much what I was thinking of with the bolded part being the main idea. The reason I chose space programs was mainly because its usually underfunded, but has a good chance to turn out valuable scientific advances, and useful technologies, while also most likely to benefit from this idea (for instance you wouldn't be able to do the same thing with Education). The whole point would be so that someone like NASA could get a few million dollars worth of research and development for only a million dollar investment, scaled of course to the amount of investment and actual useful material they'd get in return.

[Wraith]

...if they used a portion of their budgets as funds for a "prize" in a specific area of research, engineering, and/or production that they otherwise would not be able to afford due to budget constraints.

My thoughts concerning this come from the recent trend of exploiting designers by, instead of directly hiring them, offering a prize to only the winner of a competition, or only paying for the best design out of a submitted pool of designs. Essentially the companies engaging in this practice get far more than their money's worth than if they actually paid for all the work involved themselves. I have a vague idea this might have been done before (I'm not thinking of the Ansari X-Prize, but something in regards to space suit design and production). Just wondering what everyone's thoughts regarding this are, its been in my head for a bit.

There are, or at least were, a bunch of prizes from NASA related to various technologies required for a sustainable moon base. I remember specifically there being something about a type of lander, and something like habitat building using in situ materials.